Peirce’s Categories • 5

Re: Peirce List DiscussionBen Udell

For my part, I see a distinctive paradigm of thought and practice immanent in Peirce’s work and all I’ve been trying to do for many years now has been to nudge it a little further from immanence to implementation.  It is precisely the engagement with applications that brings these criticisms to the fore.

Applications to empirical situations force one to view sign relations as large collections of triples, you might even say clouds of triples.  A sign relation, in this extended sense, is more like the environment in which our discussion and thought takes place than any single focal triple of the all too fixed gaze.  Any attempt at significant application simply never gets off square one, or rather triangle one, if it fails to step back and take in the big picture of an extended sign relation.

Resources

This entry was posted in Abstraction, C.S. Peirce, Category Theory, Logic, Logic of Relatives, Mathematics, Peirce, Peirce's Categories, Phenomenology, Pragmatism, Relation Theory, Semiotics, Thirdness, Triadic Relations, Triadicity, Type Theory and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Peirce’s Categories • 5

  1. Pingback: Survey of Precursors Of Category Theory • 1 | Inquiry Into Inquiry

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s